Communism v. Socialism v. Capitalism v. Feudalism

[hoshi23]

None of them works. :sick: We have yet to find a flawless system. :geek:

you dont find it . you go through a radical perception change. whatever is found can be gone again no?

[hoshi23]

doublepost nvm me. it basicly is a joke. :sweat:

[nosisab]

Christine777 said:

I think we are talking of economic ideologies here not form of government.

 

That would be worser, I think, with capitalism as the only true representative :) but it does not matter actually, as government they are all only discourse; as economical model they are all perverse in the praxis.

 

In the last instance it is the people behind any system that matters.

 

In time: "Does not matter if is Madero or Villa, both come and eat my chickens." - Mexican peasant asked he preferred the establishment or the revolutionary in the Mexico government.

 

"The train derailed when the man began to serve the Money instead it serving mankind" - nosisab.

[Maxwell the Fool]

I keep hearing "none of the above" with no specific alternatives.......... So what is there to debate?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by them not being economic ideologies..... It's my understanding that they all are, and are the only systems practiced currently (with the possible exception of feudalism), with all forms being altered slightly from one country to the next.

 

I understand (as does anyone with any sense), that no system has all the answers and that they all have good points. This is a thread meant to encourage debate, with no real right or wrong, if you're not completely happy with one but think that it's basically good and moral and all that stuff, advocate for it, and defend your position.

 

I'm just trying to start a serious debate....... Something not insane, and with real relevance to all of our lives, but without striking at the core of anyone's identity. I thought it would be a good topic to do this, which is something that I've really not seen anything else do in ANY forum before.....

[Vagrant0]

I keep hearing "none of the above" with no specific alternatives.........

That's because nobody yet has been able to come up with a perfect model that works both conceptually and when put in practice. Not only is there the constant problem of corruption or giving rise to "freeriders", but you also have to solve the problem of ensuring that the society still functions. Most economic models are framed with the lower class masses in mind, as having some sort of better alternative to being under the thumb of the rich. But society cannot function without people who are doing the most dangerous, lowest paid jobs simply because nobody else will, and because those people have to do something in order to live.

 

Ideally, the best system would borrow the freedoms of capitalism with the social benefits of Marxism. The problem however is that you have people who are just abusing the system and taking advantage of the services offered by the government simply because they figured out how.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Vagrant0

[Trandoshan]

It doesn't have to be perfect for someone to support it. Take a side and defend it! Don't do it because you believe in it, do it because you feel sorry for it. Lets get this debate rolling.

[Nihilisaurus]

"Democracy is the worst form of government... Apart from all the other ones that have been tried" - Winston Churchill

 

Arguement over. Go find something less bad than democracy, then something less bad than that, then something less bad than that, ad nauseum.

[Maxwell the Fool]

@Vagrant: You are, as always, correct. And you've also put forth an alternative, could you please elaborate on specifics?

 

@Trandoshan: Thank you, very much, that's the point :) I'll start us off (didn't really want to...)

 

Capitalism. Here's why:

 

It's the most natural system. You're out in the wild, you're running to slow (for whatever reason), and you get eaten. EVENTUALLY the system MIGHT work itself out. Think about it, is all of the poorer people decided (quite rightly) that they couldn't afford children, eventually the only people left would be the rich, who could feed off each other perpetually.

 

Note that this is NOT entirely true to my opinions, so I bent it a bit to fit my argument, thus the purpose of a DEBATE!

 

Anyone?

 

EDIT: @LT: Do you even know what we're talking about? ECONOMICS, not systems of government, you know, just like I said in the OP.

[Aurielius]

@Maxwell

I do not think that Feudalism is as viable a candidate as Mercantilism.

Mercantilism would be defined as type of economic nationalism with a protective bent towards it's own industries. There are many more of the latter than the former in our current time.

[Trandoshan]

It's the most natural system. You're out in the wild, you're running to slow (for whatever reason), and you get eaten. EVENTUALLY the system MIGHT work itself out. Think about it, is all of the poorer people decided (quite rightly) that they couldn't afford children, eventually the only people left would be the rich, who could feed off each other perpetually.

 

The problem with this, is that the rich thrive on the business it gets from the poor. If a few select rich survive, then they will have nobody to buy their mass-produced product. In your scenario, it would be the rich 'predator' starving out due to a lack of poor 'prey'. All forms of economy need both a lower and upper class. The lower class to labor, and the upper class to lead.

 

I was discussing with my teacher about this, and he pointed out that with any form of economics, there will always be elite. Even if the original doctrine seems kosher, humans will always change it for their benefit. There can never be a society with a total upper-class. It's impossible. It's the same reason why there can be no total Lower-Class. Economics is a delicate balance between the two.

 

So far, capitalism has done well in balancing it out. Then again, it will always depress, and then again crest. Economics is like that. I wonder when the economic cycle will crash against some unknown form of barrier, and end capitalism in the U.S.

 

Also note that Europe was once mostly capitalistic in the west, they are now mostly socialist. Socialism seems to be an evolution of capitalism, as capitalism was an evolution of feudalism.

 

sorry for the spelling, I was in a rush to get the first post in.

 

Edit

 

@Maxwell

I do not think that Feudalism is as viable a candidate as Mercantilism.

Mercantilism would be defined as type of economic nationalism with a protective bent towards it's own industries. There are many more of the latter than the former in our current time.

 

Feudalism, communism, capitalism, and socialism are forms of 'economic governance'. Not government as a whole per say, but more of the financial aspect of that government. For instance, feudalism would run well with monarchy. Capitalism with democracy. It is obvious they both command difference as Capitalism is NOT democracy, but they are usually seen together in today's era.

 

That is my educated guess in support of feudalism being viable. All four of them have a social structure involved. I link them all due to this.